With the rise in PAW players over the past year, I think it is important to re-design the ranking system into a more player-friendly one, that matches the number of PAW players per tournament, rather than the amount of WTA players.

For example:

We currently have 81 commitments for Tokyo TPP, but under the old system, only the top 28 players would receive ranking points.

I have re-designed in a way to ensure that the top 56 players will receive ranking points for that tournament.

Similarly, Tier III's such as Bali (the lone tournament on week 29), would have more competitors than a Tier III such as Quebec City (since Philly is also on the same week as it), so I made a greater distribution of points in Bali, whilst keeping tournaments such as Quebec City with the original Tier III spread.

Great decision but I think these changes should have been made before we made the commitments
Anyway, thanks Spikey

I figured that too, but at the end of last year, I was still unsure if we were going to introduce an entry system and thus a new ranking system wouldn't be neccessary. However, I think this is the best solution, and I'm sorry that I notified players so "late."

Yet, it still is better than changing it during the season. And you can change your commitments if you wish.

Quote:

Originally Posted by j_dementieva27

okay sounds reasonable spikey.. one question though... as you list all these point rankings how are they determined?

are they based on rankings, placement in the tournament, or on time of commitment?

They are based on the tier of the tournament and for tournaments likely to have more commitments (ie - being the only tourney on week), the points are more spread out during the lower positions.